Another way of saying this is that he removed elements in the original picture that I liked, and that I felt belonged in the picture. Shel thought otherwise. Both our points of view are surely equally valid as they simply reflect our own personal responses to the original image.
John
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of "grip and grin" photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant).
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Shel Belinkoff wrote:While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit more
discussion.
First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call
them "superior" in any way surprises me, although I have to admit feeling
OK about it ;-)) Oh, I don't see presenting your interpretation as
competition. Frankly, I was hoping to see what you had to offer and to
learn something from it.
More interesting to me is framing and cropping. Let's use Frank's work and
my work as examples, only because we (the list in general) are familiar
with them. Frank has often said that he doesn't crop. He's also said that
he often doesn't notice certain elements in his photos until he's viewing
contact sheets or prints. It's likely that he frequently ends up with
elements in his photos that, had he seen them when looking through the
finder, may not have been included in the image. He's also said that he's
included elements in his photos that he knew were inappropriate for any
number of reasons, such as being in a hurry, using a wider lens than
necessary for the shot, and so on. Does removing or reducing those
unneeded and unwanted elements really change what was originally seen as
the photo? I think not, because they weren't supposed to be there in the
first place, so getting rid of them by cropping, burning, dodging, or any
other means would bring the image closer to what was intended, closer to
the photographers original vision.
OTOH, I crop a lot. Most all my photos are presented in a 5x7 format
although I shoot 35mm format. But I crop because that's how I most often
see the world through the viewfinder. I wear glasses, generally don't see
the full frame (except when using certain lenses on certain Leicas) often
shoot quickly, and what I usually end up framing through the finder fits
closer to the 5x7 format than the 35mm format. So I crop the final
results, but I'm not cropping what I saw and how the final photograph was
envisioned.
So, the question then is this: in the situations described, is cropping
really changing the intended image, or does cropping bring the image to
where it was intended to be as seen at the time by the photographer?
I don't think you can make a blanket statement that cropping changes the
image (speaking only of the photographers original vision) even though it
may change what has been caught on the film or the sensor. I also think,
depending on a number of variables, that enhancing an image in Photoshop
can change it more than cropping.
As for "De gustibus non disputandum est," I cannot comment, for I am
ignorant of the meaning. Shel[Original Message] From: John Forbes
I actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with yoursuperiorPhotoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the "presentation" of the image (if that's a suitable word) to produce an excellent final "print". I can't compete with you on this, and wouldn't dream of trying.produced
I also think that with your tight cropping you have in both casesa punchy image which grabs the attention. I like both. However, I think
that when you crop an image (as opposed to trimming) you are changing it rather than just enhancing it. You are in effect making a new image. Simply dodging and burning some areas doesn't create a new image; it's still the same picture, seen at its best.
I'm not making a philosophical point here, or criticising what you've done. I just like Frank's original framing, and in my view all that's needed is to do what you have done, without the cropping.
I also take your point about the importance of balance and symmetry. It might be that HCB could have produced a picture that contained all the information in Frank's picture, but with more poetry. However, Frank did
what he did, and for me the picture is more satisfying with all it's elements intact than with some of them removed or reduced in the name of balance. I might think otherwise in the case of a more abstract image, but here I like the contrast between the two performers, and don't wanttosee element that downplayed.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
